Lost Amid Summer Blockbuster Season, People Like Us Is A Formulaic (Though Not Unenjoyable) Drama Film!

The Good: Interesting characters, Good performances, Interesting plot set-up, Fun commentary tracks.
The Bad: Problematically obvious plot progression, Obvious construction conceits.
The Basics: Fun and interesting, People Like Us nevertheless succumbs to obvious formulaic conceits that rob it of being genuinely original.


As a reviewer, it behooves me to remind readers occasionally that something can be enjoyable without being particularly good. There are a great many things, pop music and popcorn movies especially, that I can admit to enjoying while still acknowledging rationally that they aren’t very good. Summer Blockbuster Season is the epitome of “enjoyable, but not good” in cinema, though there are always a few exceptions that make going to the movies in the summer worthwhile. People Like Us, which snuck somewhat anonymously into Summer Blockbuster Season last year and died a quick box office death amid the big special effects-driven movies, is enjoyable and good, but nothing more. In other words, the film – which seems cast, conceived, and even performed for greatness – is good and worth watching, but it never achieves any sort of even passing greatness. Instead, it settles for the high average territory and never challenges itself for more.

At the heart of the problem with People Like Us is the obvious Hollywood plot structure of the film. Essentially a “separated at birth” type story – though with the more contemporary “dad had a whole other family” variation - People Like Us develops as a troublingly obvious story in terms of plot. One character knows something the other doesn’t, he chooses to withhold that information, they grow close, the information is revealed, she gets pissed off at him for betrayal, then [choose your end] learns to live with it or moves for a happy ending. People Like Us is that formulaic and it is unfortunate in that the film starts with such potential to be something smarter. In fact if the writing team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (who co-wrote Star Trek, reviewed here!) and Jody Lambert had just opted to have the character with the information reveal it at the beginning and then actually wrestle with the consequences of that, as opposed to going with the obvious and contrived structures viewers have seen ad nauseum before, then People Like Us could have actually been something more than it ended up being.

As it is, it is the story of two lost characters, who in the process of learning about themselves and their family tie, they come to get through some of their lowest points in life. In the wake of Sam making a spectacular blunder at work that he is not able to devote the time to bribe his way out of, Sam’s father dies. His girlfriend, Hannah, pushes him to return to California for the funeral, though Sam works hard to avoid it. Arriving too late for the actual funeral, Sam finds his mother furious with him and the family lawyer, Rafferty, waiting to deliver something to him.

The something is $150,000 in cash for Josh and his mother, Frankie. Frankie, Sam quickly learns when stalking her to her A.A. meeting and hearing about her father, is Sam’s half-sister whose existence he was ignorant of. Frankie has her own problems; struggling to make ends meet, her son Josh accidentally blew up the school pool. Sticking around in Los Angeles, despite Federal investigators looking for him for the work-related incident, Sam gets to know Josh and slowly starts to bond with Frankie while repairing his relationship with his mother.

Until, of course, the inevitable revelation that the viewer sees coming a mile away and, instead of some sort of anticlimactic “I’ve always known” (a la Princess Leia in Return Of The Jedi), director and co-writer Alex Kurtzman goes with the obvious smackfest that viewers are comfortable with otherwise rational women degenerating into.

Rather than beat the dead horse of the formulaic plot, I’ll make a left turn into what I liked. I like that Frankie is a recovering alcoholic who does not, predictably, fall off the wagon when things get tough. In a refreshing change for the cinema, the alcoholic mother is anchored by her responsibilities to her son and she struggles to keep focused on providing a better life for him than she herself had. Frankie becomes more compelling and real the more unrealistic and wasted (on his father’s medicine) Sam gets. Sam is at his most interesting at the film’s beginning and in his interactions with Josh.

The commentary track with Alex Kurtzman, Elizabeth Banks, and Chris Pine is wonderfully entertaining as well. As Banks notes, the chemistry on-screen between her and Pine is surprisingly hot and in virtually any other film, their characters would be going at it like bunnies after (or during) the smoking scene. Kurtzman avoids any incestuous moments, which is nice, and Pine plays Sam entirely without the spark that would insinuate he is looking at Frankie in that way. In fact, arguably the only real reason for Hannah to exist in the movie is to provide a concrete, obvious reminder for viewers that Sam is anchored emotionally elsewhere. Hannah’s presence – in a true bit role for Olivia Wilde – is to fill the role of the negotiator and to make it plausible that when Sam sees Frankie the first time in her virtually nonexistent skirt that he isn’t checking her out (even then).

Banks manages to illustrate Frankie’s growing attraction and reliance on Sam with her body language – mostly her eyes. In a performance somewhat reminiscent of her role in Zack And Miri Make A Porno (reviewed here!), Elizabeth Banks makes Frankie strong and selectively vulnerable, but always deeply emotional and expressive of that in real ways (especially for someone who has lived a life where she must be guarded most of the time, looking after her child).

But for all the enjoyment from the commentary track and the main film, People Like Us is a more average family drama than it is in any way audacious or truly original.

For other works featuring Olivia Wilde, please check out my reviews of:
The Words
In Time
The Change-Up
Cowboys And Aliens
Tron: Legacy
The Next Three Days
Year One
House, M.D. - Season Four

6.5/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against other films by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where films are organized from best to worst!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Ben Affleck Reaches For The Best Picture/Best Director Oscars With Argo

The Good: Pacing, Mood, Plot, Characters, Acting!
The Bad: Too many moments of frenetic camera work/audio fallout
The Basics: Argo tells the story of the six American hostages during the Iranian hostage crisis who made it to the Canadian ambassador’s residence and the drastic and incredible lengths the C.I.A. went to the get them back, virtually assuring Ben Affleck Oscar nominations!


There are very few films I allow myself to get excited about anymore. So far, this year, I managed to keep my cool and limit my excitement to two films: Prometheus (reviewed here!) and The Dark Knight Rises (reviewed here!). But when I saw the first trailer for Argo, I found something unexpected happening: I could not help but get excited. The trailer, for a change, did exactly what it was supposed to. Without telling the whole story of the film, it revealed enough to give me a genuine interest in the movie and make me want to travel 180 miles (each way) to go to a screening.

Before checking out Argo, I decided to brush up on the history of the actual mission, which was part of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 – 1981. To check out what I could about the historical events, I picked my copy of Jimmy Carter’s memoirs, Keeping Faith (reviewed here!), off my shelf and looked at what he had to say about it. I was pleased when Carter’s memoirs provided no spoilers. Published almost immediately after his tenure as President, Carter could not reveal much about the mission as it was still classified. Ironically, he refered obliquely to the story of the escape of the six hostages as “. . . a real cloak-and-dagger story . . .” (493). If Argo has any truth to it (it is based upon the true story), then Carter was seriously underselling it!

In the hands of director Ben Affleck, Argo is a masterfully-executed historical thriller that keeps the viewer engaged and entertained throughout. Yes, this is a pleasant occasion where it is worth getting one’s hopes up for a film!

Starting with a brief history lesson on Iran and the U.S. (and Canadian) involvement there, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is overrun by student activists. As compassion gets the better of some of the military officers and the Embassy is taken – with its personnel being taken hostage – six of the workers at the front office escape onto the street. They make it to the Canadian Ambassador’s residence where they are left as the U.S. focuses on the sixty people held hostage within the U.S. embassy. The C.I.A. calls exfiltration specialist Tony Mendez to meet with State Department officials who are planning to get the six Americans out of the Canadian Ambassador’s residence. Mendez quickly realizes that the State Department plans are ridiculous for the time of year, but he has no better ideas of his own.

But watching Battle For The Planet Of The Apes remotely with his son, Mendez concocts a ridiculous and audacious plan. He pitches getting the Americans out by having them pose as a Canadian film crew working on a science fiction film that could be set in Iran. As the situation between the Iranians and Canadians deteriorates, Mendez rustles up support from Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers and executive producer Lester Siegel. As the trio works to make it look like they are preparing a real film, Jack O’Donnell does what he can to hold the agencies together. When Tony, using an alias, manages to infiltrate Iran, he finds the execution of his plan fraught with even more challenges than he planned for!

Argo might seem obvious Oscar fodder, but it is one of those films that could have credibly been released any time in the year and generated Oscar-buzz. Argo is smart, tense, and generally well-crafted. Director Ben Affleck, who also stars as the film’s primary protagonist, Tony Mendez, keeps the pace and tension high and he uses several techniques that make the viewer appreciate his perspective and approach as director. For example, Affleck uses music minimally throughout Argo. At most of the most tense moments, the soundtrack cuts out altogether, so the viewer experiences a sense of realistic anxiety and uncertainty. Affleck does not use music to telegraph the emotions the viewer is “supposed” to feel.

Moreover, Argo is well-balanced to be exceptionally entertaining. While the opening is chaotic and legitimately scary (even though the viewer knows what is coming with the fall of the American embassy), the middle portion of the film, which focuses on Mendez in Hollywood working with Chambers and Siegel, is actually funny. The film continues in the final act as a tense, but intelligent and well-crafted movie that details the mission and is smart enough to include the complexities of the real human elements (one of the Americans, for example, is afraid and overly cautious, terrified that this plan has no real chance of success). Ben Affleck deserves some further credit for his technique by judiciously using subtitles in some of the later scenes, to help illustrate the confusion of the non-Farsi-speaking Americans and heighten the level of fear for the audience.

The only real drawbacks to Argo are the sheer number of frenetic camera movements over several scenes that Affleck uses to heighten tension. While I was content with the one at the beginning, the ones near the end gave me a headache. I also noticed a few instances of audio fall-out, where characters who were speaking quietly became inaudible.

On the acting front, Argo might seem like an argument for stacking the deck or expected greatness. After all, the cast is pretty amazing, with strong roles for John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston. Clea DuVall is virtually unrecognizable (and completely convincing) as Cora Lijek and Philip Baker Hall is granted little more than a cameo. Victor Garber has another memorable role for his resume as the Canadian Ambassador, Kenneth Taylor, though his role is very much a supporting one.

Ben Affleck is given most of the heavy lifting to do and what is arguably most impressive about Argo is how incredibly he performs as Tony Mendez while directing such a rich, complex film. Six months ago, had you told me that I would get excited about a Ben Affleck film and would be arguing for him to get the Oscar nomination for Best Director (he deserves it; despite the faults it has, Argo is a better-directed film than Prometheus, despite that being an overall better use of the film medium), I would have called you crazy. But with Argo, Affleck pulls it off. He is a serious contender and Argo is his legitimate masterpiece and well worth your time and attention.

For other works with Alan Arkin, please check out my reviews of:
The Change-Up
Get Smart
Little Miss Sunshine
America's Sweethearts
Glengarry Glen Ross
Edward Scissorhands

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, by clicking here!

9/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Boogie Nights: The Weirdest Family Story From One Of America's Greatest Writer-Directors!

The Good: Characters, Story, DVD bonuses, Acting
The Bad: It feels long at times
The Basics: When Eddie Adams runs away to join the porn industry, he finds family with Jack Horner and his crew in an excellent DVD set!


There are very few artists whose works I will go to see without reading reviews and carefully deciding about the current project. Indeed, there are only three writer-directors whose films would instantly get me into the theaters: Terry Gilliam, Kevin Smith, and P.T. Anderson. Anderson won my heart and attentions with Magnolia (reviewed here!), which made my list of Top Ten Movies of all Time. Following that, I checked out his debut, Hard Eight (reviewed here!) or "Sydney" as he prefers it to be called. Ironically, his breakout film, Boogie Nights, was the last film by him that I watched.

Set in the late 1970's in California, young Eddie Adams is working a menial job at a nightclub when porn director Jack Horner walks in and takes notice of him. Horner is convinced that Eddie is physiologically gifted and made for doing porn. Following a fight with his mother, Eddie runs away to Jack's mansion where he finds himself in the company of the illustrious porn stars Amber Waves and the equally young Rollergirl. Eddie changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes the porn star Jack is convinced he could be.

But with the advent of the '80's and the rise of video tape, Horner's porn empire and Diggler's career head into a nose-dive. Diggler becomes pathetically hooked on cocaine such that he cannot sustain his erections, Amber becomes lost in an obsessive quest to see her child and Jack finds himself churning out crap on video that makes him ashamed of what he does and who he is. As things tumble out of control for the principles, Diggler and Horner slowly realize how important they were to one another's lives.

Boogie Nights, despite being a film about the porn industry and the performers and denizens of it, is essentially the story of a family. Jack Horner and Amber Waves have an untraditional family that takes in the various elements of their work, most notably Rollergirl and Diggler. But they have an extended family that includes Diggler's costar Reed Rothchild, black porn star Buck Swope, the gay sound tech Scotty J., and Little Bill, the producer whose wife is constantly cheating on him. Indeed, it is Little Bill who marks the change of the decade when he deals with the infidelity of his wife and starts the '80's off with a serious change.

But weird as the family may be, this is essentially a piece that looks at the family; what creates one, what binds one, how they fall apart and what strengths exist within the family to bring the members back again. It's an adult film that explores poor decisions, living with consequences and the resiliency that comes with . . . well, love. Yes, indeed, if there is any common element in the works of P.T. Anderson, it is the strength of love and its weird resiliency. His film Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!) was possibly the most explicit with that, but Boogie Nights gets there, too.

The thing about Boogie Nights that might throw a lot of more moderate moviegoers is that it uses the porn industry as a setting and it fearlessly explores that setting. This means the film has a bit of nudity and as the '80's progress, there's some pretty extreme amounts of drug use and violence as well. But where the setting works most effectively is in the peripheral areas; the borders between the porn world and the real world. The '70's insulate Horner and his weird family and they thrive as a continual party. As the '80's begin and the family falls apart, much of what collapses is the isolation Horner and his band of merry actors have. And therein, the film takes its toughest look at the world.

For example, Buck Swope has a lifelong dream of owning an electronics store, specifically a stereo shop. He starts a family and makes a stab at respectability but in leaving the Industry, he finds no welcome in the real world. Prejudiced against him for the jobs he had as an actor, Swope's dreams are almost all systematically crushed by those existing in the "real world." (The resolution to Buck's character is discussed hilariously by Don Cheadle, who played Buck, on one of the two commentary tracks. Seriously, it's one of the funniest bits on any commentary track ever!) In a similar fashion, Amber's desire to be around her child is thwarted and Rollergirl discovers there's no escape for one as young as her from all she has done.

Boogie Nights has a pretty massive cast, so on its lush two-disc DVD set, bonus features extensively explore all that was cut in order to make the movie what it is. The frightening aspect of the film is how much more ambitious P.T. Anderson was prepared to make it, versus how it ended up. That is not to say that it is not ambitious, because it is, but Anderson describes - and illustrates through many deleted scenes - just how much more there could have been. Anderson has a commentary track by himself as well as a second commentary track featuring various cast members. Both commentary tracks are informative and entertaining.

Other bonus features include outtakes, full improv sessions where actors Mark Wahlberg and John C. Reilly simply play off one another and warm up to one another, and extensive cast and crew biographies as well as character biographies for the principle characters.

The reason moderate - adult - filmgoers ought not to be intimidated by the two and a half hour epic about a porn film family is that the movie is well-written, well-directed, and possesses a cast that is excellent working at the top of their game. Indeed, it's difficult in some ways to get into Boogie Nights at first because of Mark Wahlberg's acting. Wahlberg as Eddie Adams is playing a young man, barely legal as it were. Wahlberg's genius in his performance is he plays Adams as a kid; he's immature, awkward and he gets into fights with his mother and runs away from home. Wahlberg's performance is wonderfully childlike and it informs the viewer to the spoiled diva Diggler will become. It's unlike anything else Wahlberg has performed in and he does a masterful job of it.

Some of my favorite actors in the film - William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Baker Hall, and Melora Walters - get the short end of the stick as it were as they play supporting cast members. Even Don Cheadle is relegated to a support role that gives him almost no scenes to dominate as his own. Heather Graham is good as Rollergirl and part of her strength, like that of Wahlberg, comes from being able to portray young with a certain level of naivete.

Julianne Moore, who plays Amber Waves, reaffirms her true greatness as an actress, though I'm not sure she does anything new in her role other than appear naked. What I mean by that is simple; Moore is a truly great and versatile actress and she instantly brings a caliber and credibility to the production that some of the other actors - like Wahlberg at the time and Graham - cannot. She lives up to all of the expectations placed upon her as a great actress, wonderfully conveying emotions using her eyes and body language. Indeed, one of her most expressive moments is during her sex scene with Mark Wahlberg when the camera focuses on her eyes and they tell the viewer exactly what her character is thinking and feeling.

The cast is rounded out by Burt Reynolds as Jack Horner. Reynolds's new look as debonair middle aged gentleman was pretty much developed by his appearance in Boogie Nights. The immaculately trimmed beard, the use of the laugh lines and piercing eyes as opposed to attempting to make him look younger seem to stem from his portrayal of Horner and it's a great look for the mature actor. Reynolds brings a confidence to the screen that makes almost all of his scenes have a strange dignity to them. Reynolds plays Horner as a professional and a father-figure to the assembly and he has a leadership quality to him that works to make the piece seem bigger than life.

And Boogie Nights is a big film. It is ambitious and surprisingly smart and its only real flaw is that it feels long in a number of places. This is ironic considering Magnolia was longer, but does not feel it. This is not a film for the feint of heart; it is long, gruesome and watching the characters plunge from the top of the world to hitting their rock bottoms is depressing and difficult.

It takes a writer-director like P.T. Anderson to make the viewer care that much and execute it with that much panache!

For other films featuring Mark Wahlberg, please check out my reviews of:
The Other Guys
Date Night
Max Payne
The Departed
Four Brothers
Three Kings

7.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Good, If Not Great, Company: In Good Company

The Good: Decent characters, Generally decent story
The Bad: Acting is generally unimpressive, Not the comedy it is billed as
The Basics: In an ultimately average movie, the principle actors give blase performances that make In Good Company a disappointment from a decent writer/director.


Scarlett Johansson is rapidly becoming one of those actresses I want to like but continue to find myself underwhelmed by. I see her appeal - a lot easier than that of Kirsten Dunst! - but I have come to realize that she's not used enough to her benefit (like the terrible Lost In Translation, reviewed here, where her performance is all that makes the character worth watching) or is appearing in a number of roles that she is simply not used enough (like The Prestige, reviewed here!). In Good Company, where Johansson receives third billing falls into the latter category, where she ends up more as a supporting player than an actual star.

When fifty-something advertising sales executive Dan Foreman's company is bought out by a major conglomerate, Foreman finds a twenty-six year old taking his job, despite the youth having no experience in the field. Carter Duryea takes over feeling the insecurity of his personal life clashing with the expectations of his professional life. When his wife leaves him and he gets into a car accident, he starts dating Foreman's daughter Alex, who is now studying at NYU. Carter and Dan clash professionally and personally over their life and job decisions.

And the main problem is that In Good Company is billed as a comedy and it's not terribly funny. There are moments that are amusing, but the movie is largely a dramatic presentation of the changing world of business and the problematic aspects of multinational conglomerates. The romantic plot between Carter and Alex is almost an afterthought and it never seems as genuine as the conflicts between Carter and Dan.

So, the first people this movie is not for are those looking for a romantic comedy. You'd likely be disappointed. On the business end, the movie's views on the changing world of business make some very good points; there are dangers in monopolies, nothing beats the personal touch and inexperienced suits ought not to replace experienced individuals who have proven their professional worth. But the movie's answers are all too simple. In Good Company effectively ignores the fact that the world is changing in favor of creating a statement that boils down to "the business world was better before multinational corporations." Thus, anyone looking for an interesting, compelling business movie with real insight is also going to be disappointed.

The characters are archetypes, or at least "types" more than individuals. Dan is a seasoned businessman who is always clever enough to get out of situations using the tried and true techniques he has developed over years and years. Carter, conversely, is an up and coming talent who seems to lose all of this innate talent and drive when his personal life hits a rut. I didn't buy that. Overachievers have a tendency to drive themselves into new projects when old ones collapse, it's part of the way they fail to deal with failure (yea overachiever defense mechanisms!).

And Alex is just a stereotype of the 18 year-old who doesn't know what she wants. She's a jock who wants to be intellectual - complete with the tired rumors that she's a lesbian. There's no real chemistry between Alex and Carter. She's amused by him and he's honest with her, but beyond that, there's nothing terribly compelling about their coming together. Instead, the direction of their relationship is completely believable.

But it's not interesting to watch. In Good Company has moments of entertainment, but the bulk of it fails at even that. I write that without rancor; I was looking to this movie to continue a string a decent movies I've seen lately.

What sold me on seeing it in the first place was Topher Grace and Scarlett Johansson in the previews. Grace is essentially playing the same role he did on That 70s Show, in a modern corporate setting. He does not do anything significantly different with his acting talents here and that was disappointing. Johansson barely has enough screentime to be labeled as a nonentity. Her character is . . . well, dull, so the only way to classify her acting here as decent is to acknowledge that she sold her character as dull. There is nothing terribly superlative about Alex or Johansson's performance.

In Good Company features decent actors in bit roles. David Paymer appears as Mort, a worker whose performance puts his job in question. The always-wonderful Philip Baker Hall appears as an angry-at-youth businessman and lends some gravitas to the role. There's even a cameo by Malcolm McDowell that is worthwhile. That the bit roles in the movie draw my attention and praise more than two of the three leads is not a good sign.

Dennis Quaid keeps the movie watchable as Dan Foreman. Quaid is articulate and believable as an aging businessman. Quaid lends strong body language to conveying his character's moods and that is effective for creating the character the audience most empathizes with.

Still, it's not enough. Paul Weitz, writer and director of In Good Company recently hit success with the brilliant satire American Dreamz (also using Dennis Quaid, reviewed here!) and before that with the surprisingly good About A Boy (reviewed here!). So it's not that he cannot write and/or direct fabulous movies. It's just that in this case, he doesn't.

For other works with Clark Gregg, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Avengers
Thor
Iron Man 2
Iron Man
The West Wing
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
State And Main
Sports Night
The Usual Suspects

5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Less Hard Upon Rewatching, Hard Eight Is Difficult to Want To Rewatch.

The Good: Excellent dialog, Interesting characters and development, Great acting, Commentary tracks
The Bad: Pacing of the plot is uneven.
The Basics: Difficult to watch and often ponderous in plot pacing, Hard Eight takes four interesting characters and weaves them together.


Recently, I've been on a Kevin Smith kick because I enjoy his genius. Dogma (reviewed here!) is a perfect film and upon listening, as I frequently do, to the commentary tracks on DVDs, I learned that one of Kevin Smith's professional nemesis is director P.T. Anderson. My only experience with P.T. Anderson's work is Magnolia (reviewed here!) which is my third favorite film of all time and an easy perfect film. Considering all of my recent attention to Smith, I decided it was time to give Anderson another chance to wow me. This took the form of acquiring and watching Hard Eight, P.T. Anderson's debut feature film.

Hard Eight, or "Sydney" as Anderson calls it (petulantly, like a spoiled child in the commentary track) is essentially a play featuring four characters: Sydney, John, Clementine and Jimmy. Sydney is an old man who finds John sitting on the ground outside a diner. John is a bit of a simpleton who is attempting to afford a funeral for his mother. To that end, Sydney takes him to the casinos and teaches him how to make a living. Two years later, the mentor/student relationship has fallen away, replaced by something akin to a father and son relationship. Sydney speaks nicely to Clementine, a cocktail waitress in the casino and soon Clementine and John are relating with one another. Enter Jimmy, a smooth hustler who Sydney takes an instant dislike to and who orchestrates a change in the balance between the characters.

Hard Eight often has the feeling of not knowing what it wants to be and while the characters are interesting, the plot is so dreadfully slow at times that it is difficult to care about. Anderson has long stretches of dialog, which is wonderful, but the people talking just seems like people talking. By the time people start doing anything of interest, it's hard to care.

For example, Sydney walks us through the casino after ten minutes of meeting John and driving to the casino. Once there, Sydney walks John through a scam to get the gentle dimwit a free room for the night. Once John has the room, we ask ourselves "what's next?" And all that comes is more talking. And an hour of talking.

I love talking. I love clever dialog. But here, it seems forever between the introduction of Sydney and John and the first actual action. Indeed, the first action, a confrontation between Clementine, John, Sydney and an unconscious man in a hotel room, seems forced. In fact, it is. It's not until the last twenty or thirty minutes of the film that the movie has any real purpose. Only when John and Clementine are sent on the run and Sydney and Jimmy face off does the film begin to move.

By that time, it's too late.

I love characters and I like the characters in Hard Eight. But by the time Sydney does anything truly vital, we've already given up on the film going somewhere. In the commentary, P.T. Anderson gives a great analogy of Sydney to an older version of a hood from some old - I believe, Jimmy Durante - movie. It's a great idea. And the film works with that as its premise. The problem is, it does not become the film's premise until extraordinarily late in the game. There aren't clues to Sydney's past, only revelations.

The film suffers for this.

Conversely, rewatching the film becomes easier and easier. The last time I watched it (the fourth time, not counting the two times with commentaries on), I caught more humor in the film and enjoyed it on another level. Once we know Sydney's reasons, his purpose for befriending John and his dislike of Jimmy, we know that the film is going somewhere and that it's being portrayed by worthwhile characters. Until the film ends the first time, that's still in limbo.

My advice, watch it once when you can't give it your full attention, like when you're making a dinner with, say, a one hour preparation time. Then, give the rest of the film your attention. Once the film is over, suspend your judgment and wait two days. Then watch the whole film with your full attention. It'll work.

Hard Eight is a film worth returning to, but one must connect with the characters - who move this film entirely - in order to want to return to it. Until the near end of the film, we don't have the incentive to.

Upon repeated rewatchings, Anderson's genius begins to creep in. We see how eagerly and proficiently he creates the casino environment, infusing it with personality and a seedy decadence. Especially strong is the second commentary track, with Phillip Baker Hall. Unlike P.T. Anderson's whiny, melancholy first commentary track, the second one actually has interesting, productive anecdotes. It moves.

In the end, Hard Eight is a hard sell. It's difficult to recommend to anyone who watches movies causally. This is for people who enjoy reading and watching films. Bookworm/movie buffs are the ideal audience for this flick as they will have the patience and attention to give this film the repeated shots it needs to work in the psyche. Everyone else would do better to enjoy a nap instead.

For other works with John C. Reilly, be sure to read my reviews of:
Cedar Rapids
Cyrus
Zombieland
9
Step Brothers
Chicago
Nightwatch

6/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

50/50 Is A Clever, Heartwrenching Comedy About Cancer.

The Good: Moments that are genuinely funny, Moments that have absolutely genuine characters, Acting
The Bad: The character of Katherine really annoyed me
The Basics: Ambitious and worthwhile, 50/50 tells a gripping and often funny story of a young man diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer.


There are very few films that I want to see that I do not manage to get to the theater to watch these days. For the most part, if I want to see it, usually I find a preview screening or, barring that, I pay to see the film as early as I can after its release. Somehow, I managed to miss 50/50 when it came out and now that it is out on DVD, I have just managed to get it in to watch. 50/50 came highly recommended to me and when my wife and I sat down to watch it, we were both a little emotionally guarded. We have both had a lot of loss in our lives from people dying or serious health concerns. So, the idea of a comedy about a cancer patient was one that would either soar or crash with us. Fortunately, 50/50 lived up to its potential and delivered a solidly entertaining film that became one of the best recent surprises we’ve sat down to.

50/50 is loosely based on a true story and Will Reiser manages to write a brilliantly deep – if occasionally predictable – film that captures the difficult realities of end-of-life issues while still making them entertaining. Above all, 50/50 works because it is funny and populated by interesting characters. 50/50 is the comedic version of cancer much the way that Six Feet Under (reviewed here!) made a hard-hitting drama that was unafraid to face issues surrounding death. 50/50 might not make cancer fun, but it illustrates how even a cancer diagnosis cannot stop those determined to enjoy life from actually living. That is an admirable theme and it is well-executed in 50/50.

Adam is excited about his relationship with the eccentric artist Rachael, so much so that he has a drawer for her in his house and that thought pleases her. After a few days of back pain, Adam visits the doctor where he is diagnosed with cancer. Shocked but immediately supportive, his co-worker and friend Kyle rallies around him and tries to keep his spirits up. Adam gives Rachael the chance to bail and is surprised and pleased when she does not take him up on the offer. After an awkward conversation with his mother and after meeting the hospital therapist, Katherine, Adam starts the chemotherapy that should help break down the tumor on his spine.

While Kyle uses Adam’s cancer to score with women, he remains fiercely defensive of his friend. When he catches Rachael cheating on Adam, he calls her out and helps Adam push her away. While Adam works with the painfully awkward Katherine (he is her third patient ever!) to process the feelings he has while going through the chemotherapy, he meets Mitch and Alan who also suffer from cancer and forms a friendship with them as well. Over drinks with Kyle, pot with the older men and therapy sessions with Katherine, Adam oscillates between hope for survival and despair that the odds might be too long to beat.

50/50 works much more often than it does not and the biggest issue I have with the movie is actually in the predictable elements. I’m not talking spoiler-alert ending ruined by all of the interviews I heard with Seth Rogen when 50/50 was released in theaters predictable. No, 50/50 is unfortunately formulaic even when one does not know anything about the real-world events that inspired the film. The most pressing of these predictable elements come in the forms of Katherine and Rachael. Rachael is the archetypal flighty young artist, so the few viewers who might not have seen her bailing on Adam when he first tells her he has cancer should pretty much see it coming a mile away the first moment she mentions “energies.” Her refusal to come into the hospital telegraphs the fact that the Adam and Rachael relationship is not long for the film. No surprise there.

What I saw as an unfortunately predictable element was how 50/50 developed the Katherine and Adam relationship. While the disintegration of Rachael and Adam was obvious and built-in to the characters, the burgeoning relationship between the terribly awkward Katherine and the emotionally fragile Adam was not inevitable. In fact, the more Katherine did unprofessional things like lay her hands on Adam, the more I cringed. And it is supposed to be awkward; it is presented in a very funny way in 50/50. But Katherine starts the movie trying, desperately, to be professional around Adam and because the relationship with Rachael was so doomed from the start, I wanted to see 50/50 defy the expectations and have Katherine fully assert her professionalism and put an end to any potential romance between her and Adam.

Even so, 50/50 is nowhere near a disappointment! Adam is a likable character, even if he is neurotic before he gets cancer. Similarly, Kyle is annoyingly lovable and the real treat of 50/50 is how, despite how self-serving Kyle seems on the surface, he has a clear and deep affection for Adam that is only deepened as Adam goes through his cancer journey.

50/50 rightfully earns a lot of respect for having good actors performing well. While I am on the fence as to whether Anna Kendricks (of Twilight fame) is a phenomenal actress or just cast perfectly for the awkward and somewhat disturbing role of Katherine, the rest of the cast is clearly professional. Anjelica Houston uses her brief time on screen to give a meaningful supporting performance as Adam’s mother, as does Serge Houde as her husband. In fact, Houde gives one of the most subtle and delightful performances as Adam’s Alzheimer’s-plagued father. Bryce Dallas Howard creates yet another delightfully unlikable antagonist as Rachael, but she manages to do it in a completely different way from how she portrayed the snobby socialite in The Help (reviewed here!).

Most of the film hangs upon the solo acting talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his on-screen chemistry with Seth Rogen. Seth Rogen appears in 50/50 as something of a more mellow version of his usual robust and energetic self. He is still eager and enthusiastic, but he does play the part of Kyle with a little more restraint and humanity than he does most of his straightforward comedy roles. Yes, Seth Rogen has all the depth we always suspected he dis and in 50/50, he lets it show.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is fully divorced from his early comedic roots in 50/50, reaffirming his role as one of the premiere actors of his generation. He is somber, serious, and only mildly quirky as Adam. The strength of his performance in 50/50 comes from his ability to emote and present lines that are deeply expressive without ever seeming over-the-top. Add to that, he is able to smile using only his eyes at times and when Adam needs to look fatigued, Gordon-Levitt completely sells the moment! His brief interactions with Philip Baker Hall and Matthew Frewer are delightful and his ability helps to solidly sell the premise of the film.

Now out on DVD, 50/50 features a commentary track and three featurettes. The commentary track is very informative and the featurettes are fun, adding additional value to the DVD and Blu-Ray. For those who live in fear of cancer, 50/50 provides a powerful and charming story that will engage viewers for years to come.

For other works with Seth Rogen, check out my reviews of:
Paul
The Green Hornet
Monsters Vs. Aliens
Zack And Miri Make A Porno
Pineapple Express
Step Brothers
Donnie Darko
Freaks And Geeks

8/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Loop - Season 1 Is NOT Season 2 Or Quite Worth It!

The Good: Funny, Quirky, Excellent cast, Decent characters
The Bad: Standard sitcom plots, Only 7 episodes, Light DVD extras!
The Basics: A comedy I liked more in its second season starts out as a pretty sad DVD outing with just not enough to recommend it.


If you've never heard of The Loop, it's not surprising. This television series was a midseason replacement in the winter (March) of 2006, was renewed for a second season that was abruptly cut short in July of 2007 and appears to be a project that is dead in the water. I suspect if the producers knew that it was going to be axed prematurely, they would have waited and released The Loop - The Complete Series instead. Had that been the case, my rating would have been higher and a firm recommend. As it is, it is not.

In its first season of seven paltry episodes, The Loop tries to be a series that balances the personal and professional lives of a new college grad. As a result, the plots are somewhat banal and overdone. It is, on the plot front, a formulaic a comedy as, say, ’Til Death. But were it not for that, this would be a show I was enthusiastically recommending. Let me explain.

Sam Sullivan has recently graduated from college and he finds himself working for TransAlliance Airways. He is a suit and he works directly with the head of the company, Russ, and his quirky board. While Sam finds his workdays a strange collection of non-sequitors and disturbing requests, he returns home to his friends who do not have steady jobs or work priorities. As a result, the average plot involves exploring Sam trying to juggle the two halves of his life. He has a presentation to make, but the night before he gets completely drunk with his friends. Sam tries to reconnect with a woman who seems eager for him, but his boss continues to call on him to do more work-related assignments.

It's that type of banal, typical and overdone television plot that sinks much of The Loop - Season 1. On DVD the episodes show their weakness with no DVD extras to speak of (there's one featurette) and the entire seven-episode run crammed onto one disc. The reason I find myself lamenting this set is that the second season is truly wonderful. Almost completely abandoned are the non-work elements in Sam's life and the show becomes a quirky sitcom about a cog in the machine working for a major airline. The situations are zany, consistently funny and utilize the strength of the cast far better than this set. But then, that's not this set. Instead, this does have the episodes trying to balance Sam between the two and it makes for something very typical.

What is funny in The Loop as presented in this set is the delivery of the characters. Russ is an eccentric boss who is rich and crazy and wonderful, Sam finds himself in awkward positions and his brother Sully is the archetypal slacker with no ambition who drains him some. While the characters in the first season are not truly extraordinary, they are interesting. The main characters include:

Sam Sullivan - A cog in the machine. He is used to getting drunk with his friends and dating, but finds working for TransAlliance Airways to drain him of most of his time and his ability to pursue the crush of his life, Piper,

Sully - Sam's lazy brother who takes on such things as dogsitting to appear to earn money and make an effort at doing something,

Meryl - Sam's senior coworker who comes to slowly value his ideas and opinions,

Piper - The love interest for Sam, she is the archetypal blonde beauty who Sam pines for but never seems to have enough time for given his job. She has a love of the band the Dandy Warhols and becomes determined to see them in concert,

Lizzy - A friend of Piper and Sam's, she's a partier and a virtual nonentity,

Darcy - Sam's assistant, she is smarter and better at his job than he is and she finds herself constantly thwarted by his lack of ambition and ability,

and Russ - The boss. He is a veteran of the business and used to succeeding. He sees potential in Sam and takes suggestions from him frequently enough to make Meryl worried. He makes fast, swift decisions that makes him appear to be a good boss, but is completely indifferent to the lives of his workers and has quirks that make him fun to watch.

Actually, Russ is the only reason to watch the first season of The Loop. Russ is quirky, outrageous with the things he says and just plain weird. He reminds me some of Jimmy James from NewsRadio. Russ is played by Philip Baker Hall, the esteemed and dignified actor from such heavy dramas as Hard Eight. It's hard to believe that Hall could play such a weird character as the comedically blunt Russ, but he pulls it off, in part because of his legacy of dignity. Because we don't expect Hall to be zany, it makes Russ appear even more crazy and it provides Phillip Baker Hall with a truly unique part to add to his resume.

In many ways, Mimi Rogers is given the short end of the stick with her part of Meryl. Because the first season is obsessed with creating the push-pull on Sam, she is seldom given enough to do and fails to shine in this set.

Finally, Bret Harrison is charged with carrying the show and he is convincing as Sam. Sam's somewhat uncompelling conflict is handled well by Harrison who illustrates he has a decent sense of comic timing. He delivers his lines well, but most of the humor that comes from Sam comes from the lines as opposed to the delivery. This makes Harrison a decent vessel, if not a great actor.

But it's not enough. I wish it were because I truly enjoy the series and the second season, but with just seven episodes and only one little bonus on DVD, this set is hard to justify. When it comes down under $10.00 on clearance, it might have enough value to pick up for the viewing. I mean, Phillip Baker Hall is worth it, but it's just not there now.

For other works by Pam Brady or Will Gluck, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Friends With Benefits
Easy A
Fired Up!
South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut

5/10

For other television reviews, please be sure to check out my Television Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Another Long Thinking-Persons Movie! Cradle Will Rock

The Good: Acting, Casting, Tapestry of plots, Ambiguity of message
The Bad: Moments of pacing (density)
The Basics: Another film that ought to have been contending for greater things in 1999, Cradle Will Rock is a character-driven tapestry of 1930s U.S.


Cradle Will Rock is potentially one of the greatest robberies in film history. No, it does not steal from other people's works or such, but in the races to win awards and receive recognition and an audience, it most certainly was robbed. It's ironic, considering the film is often about people standing up and acknowledging truths and greatness, that so few people stand up to praise the movie.

The film has a large scope and as such it often loses people, especially those who wish to see a movie without having to concentrate on it. The plots and characters weave around and play off each other. Nelson Rockefeller has chosen to have Diego Rivera paint the mural in the lobby of Rockefeller Center, which becomes problematic as the leftist artist incorporates images such as Lenin and syphilis into the work. WPA worker Hazel Huffman has rallied several anti-Communist artists to aid her in testifying against the WPA. One such artist is vaudeville ventriloquist Tommy Crickshaw, whose character arc is quite gripping. Largely the film plays around with Aldo Silvano and Olive Stanton, who are playing in a WPA play called "Cradle Will Rock," which is on the importance of Unions in America. Set against the play is a whole plot of steel tycoon Gray Mathers who is supplying Mussolini with steel.

The film is truly a tapestry and without knowing - or being able to appreciate - that, the viewer is lost. It's a complex film, especially as it says one thing and does another. For example, the play Cradle Will Rock is attempting to show the benefits of a union while the events surrounding the play lead to the Actor's Guild refusing to let the play be performed. If anything, the film is making the most potent argument about Unions ever: that they have their time and place, but their application is not universally beneficial to those who are a part of it. It's a story set in the 1930s, illustrating a concept that took much longer to be realized.

The acting is wonderful. All of the players get into their parts and portray the people they represent. Hank Azaria is wonderful as the delusional Marc Blitzstein, who writes Cradle Will Rock in the film. Harris Yulin gives a great performance and the briefly-seen Congressman Dies. All of the usual suspects: John Cusak, Joan Cusak, Philip Baker Hall, Vanessa Redgrave, Ruben Blades, John Turturro, and Emily Watson give their high caliber performance meeting or exceeding our expectations for their work. The true acting genius comes in the unlikely package of Bill Murray. In the surprise of the film, Bill Murray plays Tommy Crickshaw with a wonderful mix of self-loathing, abandonment and neediness. His character has surprising depth and I never thought I'd be saying he's the man to watch in a film with such talented actors as this.

While the film is not perfect, Cradle Will Rock comes quite close. Outside some historical references that are obscure, the film has moments where its purpose is unclear and it slows the pace. There are much worse uses of your time than this film and if you have children, I highly recommend this as an intelligent, engaging film. There are too few these days.

I must say, I'm impressed by the caliber of work Tim Robbins puts forth writing and directing Cradle Will Rock. This film was vastly underrated in a year of great films, most of which were overlooked.

For other powerful dramas, please visit my reviews of:
Magnolia
The Social Network
The Mission

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

F-U! I'm Just Saying...Fired Up! Needs To Do Something (Anything) Original. (It Doesn't.)

The Good: One or two one-liners
The Bad: Obvious, Predictable, Not terribly funny, clever or original, Lousy characters, Reinforces homophobia.
The Basics: Fired Up! disappoints even viewers who go into it with low expectations for a sex-farce because it does not have anything new or more to it than that.


[Note: This review was originally written based upon a preview screening of “Fired Up!” in advance of the movie. Since then, my wife has fallen in love with the works of writer-director Will Gluck – who has since done “Easy A” and “Friends With Benefits.” So, when she wasn’t feeling well, I got out “Fired Up!” again and it turned out to be no better a second time or in an unrated form. That said, enjoy the analysis!]

The most disappointing thing about going into movies that one has low expectations about is when those low expectations go unmet. Last year, I was pleasantly surprised by a little sex-farce called Sex Drive that actually succeeded in charming me. So when I saw some of the previews for Fired Up! I allowed myself as moment or two of hope. Then, I grounded myself, called the entire plot and character arcs prior to the screening I went to tonight and figured that the film would be average-at-best. What ultimately makes Fired Up! below average is its stifling averageness. There is nothing original, clever or even entirely surprising or interesting in this film.

It is worth noting, as well, that Fired Up! is solidifying for me a new pet peeve. Those who read my many movie reviews know that I absolutely loathe films where the preview shows (essentially) the entire movie. After all, my argument goes, what is the point of shelling out money to see a movie that one has already seen in a condensed form, especially where the best moments are in the preview? My new pet peeve in this regard is when montages in the movie are cut into the preview. It is one thing to take and condense moments of time in a movie to keep the pace going and move it along, but to include those montages in the trailer, like the whole movie might be a series of clips is just tacky. I make this in reference to Fired Up! because one of the reasons I was even willing to subject myself to this obvious schlock comedy was that John Michael Higgins was in it. In the previews, there were quick clips of him doing physical comedy in the form of cheer positions. These clips, sadly, are exactly as they appear in the movie, cut as montages from a sort of "welcome to cheer camp" sequence and they do not fit the movie. In fact, if possible, they were funnier in the trailer. Note to trailermakers: Stop putting montages in your montage trailers!

Nick and Shawn are two popular football players who are looking at the prospect of two weeks at football camp and not relishing the thought of two weeks without girls. Given that between the two of them, they have had sex with all but one of the girls in their high school class, they have the libido to keep having sex and are not eager to go two weeks without girls. After outrunning the fathers of two girls they are trying to make moves on, they consider that a change of venue might be worth it and they overhear members of the cheer squad talking about Cheerleading camp and the three week program they are looking forward to. Nick and Shawn hit on the idea of joining the squad, having sex with new girls and ditching out after week two to make it back for a week with their drunk, idiotic football buddies.

After enlisting Shawn's sister, the boys convince the dim cheerleaders to accept them and convince head cheerleader Carly to accept them onto the squad. Arriving at cheer camp, Shawn begins to feel something for Carly, despite joining Nick in seducing as many girls as he can. Nick finds himself drawn to the over-thirty, married camp counselor, Diora. As the guys get more into cheering than they ever expected, they attempt to woo their respective girl and woman while training to win the competition that the Tigers have lost every year.

Fired Up! is a stupid comedy and if you called the film from what was shown in the trailer, odds are you guessed exactly right. It is the type of movie where there are no surprises: Shawn is interested in Carly, despite her romancing a lecherous college freshman who calls himself Dr. Rick. There is a cheer move that is prohibited, the Fountain Of Troy, so you can pretty much figure that someone is going to try doing that. And Diora being married is not a valid reason - it appears - for Nick to not pursue her.

The most disappointing thing about Fired Up! is that there is no charm or surprise, nothing that makes this movie even remotely unique. In other words, it is all hard-on and no heart. As a result, the football players outside Nick and Shawn are all idiots, Nick and Shawn are the idealized high school players and the girls are pretty much willing to go along with anything or even encourage the guys' stupidity, because it is that sort of movie. We expect that going in, but in Fired Up! there is nothing to contradict that or even make it remotely interesting.

In fact, the only real laughs I got out of Fired Up! were the political references and the wordplay outside anything to do with the main plot. So, for example, when signing in, Nick notes that they are from Gerald Ford High School with a comment like "mediocre president, great public school." The rest of the time, the humor is so easy to call that it is disturbing and the catch phrases, most notably one girl whose repeated line is "I'm just saying . . ." wears out quickly.

As it seems to be a requirement in PG-13 sex-farce movies of our modern times, there are references to homosexuals and lesbians and Fired Up! makes them without any particular sensitivity, subtlety or even humor. Most disturbing is during the closing credits where the youngest member of the cast presents alternate takes on a line where she was derogatory toward another character's lesbianism and the lines, even edited, become pretty hateful. In other words, this film reinforces the heteronormative and uses "gay" as a pejorative at times.

That said, Fired Up! is pretty harmless because it is essentially an excuse for PG-13 T&A, though I understand that it had to be pared down to get the PG-13, so expect an "unrated" DVD when it comes out in that format. There is a make-out montage, an overbearing soundtrack and good actors doing terrible things. Phillip Baker Hall plays a coach whose most frequently used word (no kidding, because the guys place a bet on the number of times he will use it in their conversation) is "shit." One assumes Hall did something on one of Will Gluck's other sets that Gluck was able to extort for his participation in this. The thing is, when the teen sex-farce was new, there was the potential to be original and now the key is to do something different or charming. Fired Up! does neither.

It does, however, make poor use of a number of talents. Phillip Baker Hall is not used to anything close to his potential as the foul-mouthed coach. John Michael Higgins, whose work I have enjoyed since before I saw him in Best In Show is underused and when he is utilized he gives us no shtick outside what we've seen from him before. None of the female leads stand out as anything other than Hollywood beautiful stickfigures (I swear, I remember seeing more diversity in body shape in EVERY cheerleading team I have seen in real life than in this movie) and in the group shots, the acting is terrible, if one chooses to look at anyone but the leads on screen.

The movie comes down to the acting talents of Nicholas D'Agosto and Eric Christian Olsen. Olsen, who played Sully in director Will Gluck's The Loop is essentially playing the same character in Fired Up! Both were the wisecrackers with a witty sense of intelligence to them and Gluck seems to be unable to utilize Olsen in any other way. D'Agosto plays Shawn with the most obvious character arc and while he cannot be held to account for the writing, he performs the part with no particular flair or charisma, making it in no way enjoyable to watch.

Fired Up! is exactly what it seems to want to mock, a cheerleading sex-farce that is exactly as the previews made it seem. And viewers deserve more. "I'm just saying . . ."

For other coming-of-age comedies, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Bride Wars
Bridget Jones’s Diary
She’s Out Of My League

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Playing Corporate God: The Truman Show Succeeds!

The Good: Ed Harris' acting, Strong moments in the middle to end, Character
The Bad: Pacing, Very beginning, Very end, Psychological believability
The Basics: A surprisingly competent work, despite some major pitfalls, The Truman Show is very watchable.


The sky has fallen; I'm recommending a film with Jim Carrey. It was a close one. What tipped me over was the question "Would I watch it again?" and despite serious problems with how the film is paced, I had to admit I would.

The Truman Show follows a rather impressive idea, especially for our current era of so-called "reality" television. The Truman Show (in the film) is a reality show focusing on Truman Burbank, a square if ever there was one. He unwittingly lives his life, oblivious to the fact that he lives in a giant soundstage. The show revolves around Truman 24 hours a day. His life IS the show and he doesn't know it.

After establishing that through a rather ordinary day, his world begins to be questioned when his dead father reappears. This inspires Truman to challenge his beliefs in his existence.

Unfortunately, it's not until over halfway through the film that The Truman Show focuses on Cristof, the producer/director of The Truman Show. It is here we learn the sweeping scale of the show, that Truman was born on television and for thirty years has been the subject of the documentary and the startling corporate scope of the project.

It's unfortunate that the film takes so very long to focus on Cristof, because he has the far more interesting character. His relationship to Truman is far more compelling than the simple "Truman realizes he's in a t.v. show" plot.

One of the major setbacks to the film is that while it adequately explores Truman's epiphanies, it does not reflect that emotively with Cristof. Here's a man whose last thirty years have been entirely devoted to Truman and on the eve of the project's collapse, he doesn't seem at all emotionally conflicted.

The psychological believability of the situation fails with Cristof and it stretches far too thin with Truman. That is, the end is vastly too hopeful, Burbank is way too exuberant for a man who has literally just lost his entire world. It's an ambitious premise presented unambitiously. I would have vastly preferred the film to begin about forty minutes in and then take an additional two hours or more focusing on what happened next.

Ed Harris, however, saves the film. His portrayal of Cristof is excellent. He is calculating, intriguing and desperate. I bought him, for the most part. I cared about Cristof; it was a shame that his creation (Truman) was such a poser. That is, Truman Burbank reads like a fifties oversimplified cheerful mask. He isn't terribly real.

Jim Carrey. I suppose I can't escape the review without actually mentioning him. He acted, but it was inconsistent. The film opens with Carrey being very much Jim Carrey and it was hard to take him seriously. The last line of the film disappointed me because of the way Carrey screwed his face up and delivered it as Jim Carrey as opposed to Truman Burbank. The middle? Pure acting, excellent work. Sadly, Carrey has never been finer than in the middle of The Truman Show where he's actually grappling with existential questions.

There are obvious flaws in the film. The largest would have to be: on a soundstage, even a massive one, how would it ever be possible to get past the security on such a project. That is, assuming the actors leave the stage occasionally, how would it ever be possible for the actor who played Truman's father to ever get back inside?! Too hard to suspend disbelief for that.

What isn't hard to believe is the premise. The idea of a life being so thoroughly deconstructed, ominous as it may be, is fairly practical. They pulled that off well.

Outside Ed Harris, what saves the film is the actual exploration of character. While much may be spent on the gimmick of the plot, the film does a very good job at keeping everything focused on the aspects of character: Truman's longing to understand his existence. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the film is where it does intersect reality: Truman gets to confront his god, his creator. What a bummer that most everyone else doesn't get that privilege.

My last word: I recommend this film, but I more strongly recommend the Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode "Whispers" as it deals with the existential questions The Truman Show fails to answer far better. After all, The Truman Show isn't the only film to deal with people feeling like everyone in their world has turned on them!

For other realisty-bending films with strong psychological elements, please check out my reviews of:
Sucker Punch
Inception
Passengers

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

Love And Redemption And Cinematic Perfection: Magnolia Is Incredible!

The Good: Characters, Dialogue, Plot, Acting, "Look."
The Bad: None.
The Basics: Without exaggeration, Magnolia is a perfect film. A masterpiece of American storytelling, acting and directing with wonderful characters weaving an intricate tapestry.


"And the book says we may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us. And no, it is not dangerous to confuse children with angels!" So speaks the middle aged Donnie Smith, played by William H. Macy near the middle of the film Magnolia. That line epitomizes the level of thought ongoing in the film as all of its characters search for love and/or redemption.

Magnolia reviews have often been criticized for being pretentious, often stated as "as pretentious as the film itself." However, while some of the reviews do attempt to be overly dignified and important (or self-important), the film is truly excellent. In all implications of the word. It is containing an emotional and psychological depth often lacking in film today, it utilizes dialogue a caliber that is rare inside the dumbed-down popular culture too often prevailed upon in the U.S. and it is big and long. In a word: adult. This is an adult movie. It's not pandering to children, it's not pandering to teenagers ages 14 - 21, it's a movie with breadth and depth written by an adult, for an adult audience. Allow me to explain why.

First of all, the duration of the film is geared toward adults. At 191 minutes, three hours, eleven minutes for those of you doing the math, it's a long film. To watch the movie takes some degree of patience. "Patience?! The film can't be engrossing if it requires patience!" Au contraire, while the film requires the ability to remain stationary for three hours, it is very engaging. I've seen the film twice now and not once during it have I looked at a clock. It is that easy to lose oneself in it. If anything, I'm upset by the length only in that it requires two tapes. Ideally, I'd like to see the film without having to get up and change tapes. The reason the length is not at all a "con" is because it's all necessary. The film The Road Home, for example, is filled with simple conflicts that are easily resolved. Add to that that that film attempts to illustrate such things as waiting by showing the young woman waiting for her lover actually waiting. For extended periods of time, nothing happens because she's actually waiting. How does this relate to Magnolia? Several scenes in The Road Home could have been cut, not true with Magnolia. The sheer number of characters and plots make everything that appears in the film necessary. There aren't whole scenes or ideas that could be eliminated or trimmed in this film. Quite simply, the length of the film is indicative of the themes it explores. It's an adult movie, it's an adult length.

A huge reason the length is appropriate is the themes the movie portrays. The resounding themes of the movie are love and redemption. All of the primary characters in the film are either attempting to find or express love or are in a search for redemption. Some are involved with both themes. But this is not a juvenile exploration of either emotion or desire. The film deals with love with sensibilities and sensitivities of an adult. The need to be forgiven is powerful throughout the movie and it is written with appropriate passion and force. These are compelling ideas, aspects of human nature, that adults wrestle with. Magnolia is about adults wrestling with adult problems and themes.

So, what is Magnolia and how to write a review about it without sounding pretentious? The film as a mosaic of intertwining people's lives. That is the best description of the film: it is a larger work consisting of smaller, often unrelated elements. If you look at the pieces of the film, you'll see individual stories and characters, if you look at the film as a whole, you'll see overriding themes and ideas. I'd liken it a little more to a tapestry; the threads of a tapestry weave together and while it's possible to appreciate the various threads, the overall image is more pronounced. The difference between a tapestry and mosaic is subtle; with a mosaic, there's often less interaction between the component parts, whereas threads of different colors in a tapestry weave and wind through the larger work in more analogous ways. That is, one character or plot will appear suddenly in the film and another character or plot may disappear for quite some time.

So, what is Magnolia about? Due to the character-driven nature of the film, it's impossible to discuss the plot without focusing on the characters. The movie is about characters, about people, feeling and doing things. And the principles are:

Jim Kurring, a seemingly-together beat cop who plays by the rules and lives a principled, often humble, life is going about his life looking for love. In the course of the film and following a good arrest in a pretty heinous crime, he discovers Claudia.

Claudia is an often-inarticulate coke junkie who is recovering from her past (thought that quote at the beginning was irrelevant, did ya?! Shame on you!) and looking for love and seeking redemption from her past and present indiscretions. Claudia and Jim are often the heart and soul of the film, though it's near impossible to say that as they both have the screen perhaps a third of the movie. But their relationship is beautiful, realistic, and more than anything, adult.

Claudia's father is Jimmy Gator, aged game show host of the long-running "What Do Kids Know?" Jimmy is dying of cancer and in the course of the movie confesses all his indiscretions to his wife and appears before his daughter desiring nothing more than complete redemption for his crimes against her. Jimmy is lost and his inability to resolve himself to even being honest to the full truth of all he's done cripples him. He's a complex character seeking a complex absolution.

Perhaps the best foil for Jimmy is the child Stanley. Stanley is a child prodigy appearing on "What Do Kids Know?" As Jimmy degrades, Stanley, under enormous pressure to perform (as he is about to break a longevity record on the gameshow) from his father, his teammates, the producers of the show, begins to become actualized. He steps out of his childhood (which his intelligence has already forced him out of) and asserts his desires. One of the film's last lines is his and it articulates the most important desires of any human who has ever been an underdog, anyone who has wanted respect. Stanley is seeking love and acceptance for the person he is, not just the potential he represents.

On the same side of the spectrum is Donnie Smith, former champion on "What Do Kids Know?" It is his record Stanley is two days away from breaking and it's clear Donnie never had the actualization Stanley is seen achieving. Instead, Donnie, at the end of his celebrity, laments the losses of his life as he tries, more than anything else, to attempt to articulate his loves. His heart is a big one, his sense of damage deep, and as he tries to manipulate circumstances throughout the film to make his love possible, he expresses a vast range of emotions.

For every bit Donnie loves, Earl Partridge seeks redemption. Earl, aged and also dying of cancer (the fact that there are two people in the film dying of cancer seems to bother many reviewers; I'm not sure why. There are many people dying of cancer, especially in the 60+ range. These things truly happen!), is seeking forgiveness from his son. Through the course of the movie, the reasons for that desire become clear, but it is one of the bigger surprises of the film, so I'm not going to ruin it. Actually, this is a good time to say this: all of the driving forces behind the characters, complex as they are, come out. This film masterfully weaves so many of their motivations together, making them explicit and real. Earl wants deathbed redemption and his reasoning is compelling.

Around Earl are two very important and engaging characters. The first is Linda Partridge, Earl's significantly younger wife. Linda is a nexus of love and redemption. As one might guess seeing such a young woman with such an old man, her marriage to Earl was more than for love. The problem Linda has is that as Earl has moved closer to death, she has actually fallen in love with Earl and she feels tremendous remorse for the horrible things she's done, for her betrayals of Earl's love. There's a sense of poetic justice in the relationship Linda and Earl have.

The final primary character, and the second intertwined with Earl is Frank T.J. Mackey. He is a misogynistic, angry man, filled with hate and dogma. He's like the reactionary anti-christ motivational speaker. He conducts workshops on empowering men to be Men (read: men to be dogs). His "Seduce and Destroy" philosophy resonates through the film and it becomes clear early on that this is a scarred individual who is filled with hate. When news reaches him that Earl is dying, his becomes a most compelling exploration of how and why to give redemption and the magnitude of love, even for those who have done horrible wrongs to us.

The only character heretofore unmentioned is Earl's nurse, Phil. Phil is played expertly by Philip Seymour Hoffman and he serves as an excellent place to continue the analysis of Magnolia. Hoffman delivers a heartfelt performance as the nurse, carrying through the stages of Earl's degradation with stark realism, blind optimism and an impressive array of facial expressions. Juliane Moore and Melora Walters amazingly play Linda and Claudia. Their performances are sharp, expertly delivered in dialogue and simple strength of their portrayals. Jason Robards and Jeremy Blackman are expert actors fleshing out the dying Earl and the boy on the brink Stanley. Their acting is wonderful. The film is filled with wonderful actors acting wonderfully.

The best acting comes from three men, which is actually a semi-surprise to me. William H. Macy, who I've come to expect great performances from, adds so much depth and greatness to Donnie. He doesn't fail to deliver in Magnolia; if anything, he makes me raise his bar for his work even higher. He's that great. As good is John C. Reilly as Officer Jim. His performance is nothing short of incredible. He plays the part with such simplicity and presence that, when viewing the film, it's hard to take one's eyes off him. He's very real. He's needy and lovable and his words are poetic and portrayed with such stark realism and near-clumsiness that it's easy to miss how on-the-nose his dialogue truly is. The triumvirate is completed by Tom Cruise. Usually a clumsy, stylish, pretty face/bad actor, Frank is the role Cruise was born to play. If nothing else, it proves Cruise can act. The characters is slick, disgusting and loathsome and Cruise plays him expertly. He deserved every nomination and award he received for this role. He was that good. I never thought I'd ever say that about Tom Cruise, but this is the film to see him in.

On DVD, Magnolia comes with a featurette, a video diary of its production, which is enlightening. There is not a commentary track, but the behind-the-scenes featurettes are entertaining and educational. The bonus disc also contains closer looks at background components of the primary film.

Magnolia, in final analysis, is beautiful to watch. It's wonderfully shot, expertly put together, visually impressive. The soundtrack is integral and it works well. In short, this is a perfect film. It is an adult film and it deserves the attention of adults who have compassion, thought and emotions. This is the film adults have been waiting for. It captures our imagination and deals with real, adult problems and solutions, thoughts and emotions.

For other incredible dramas, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
Watchmen
The Social Network

10/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2007, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |